Twinky

Thanks for clarifying that, HWTB. Glad to learn that it is against the rules. But this worries me and sounds contradictory to this: That sounds kinda like justifying violent behavior: "If for some reason say, some guy in the pub feels the need to hit another guy in the pub, then he may get a punch in the face." "If for some reason say, some driver feels the need to hit another driver (maybe he cut him up at a road junction) then he may punch him up." Restrained behavior is expected in both those events, regardless of provocation; and failure to exercise restraint (ie punching out the other guy) is likely to earn the interest of the boys in blue. Why should baseball be different? Even contact sports like boxing and martial arts have proper rules about where and when an opponent may be hit. In football (soccer), if you deliberately target an opponent and foul him by going for the man not the ball, you're likely to get sent off (ejected) and your team will play on without you and without a substitute, which usually results in the fouler's team losing the game. Doesn't that happen in baseball? I can't see that a strategy of deliberately assaulting an opponent is sportsmanlike. In fact, strategically, it's cowardly because you're admitting you can't beat your opponent legally. And what a terrible example to set young kids that like to play the game, when their role models get away with serious assault.

Okay, you guys, you need to explain baseball to me. I've just been reading a novel by John Grisham called "Calico Joe" about a promising young baseball batter who is deliberately targeted by a spiteful fast pitcher; Joe is hit on the head, severe head injuries, and never returns to the game. I did some reading around this topic and it seems that it's legal to actually throw a ball intending to hit the opponent. WOT??? Sure it can happen that a batter gets hit - by accident, because of an error of someone's judgment - but to deliberately target not just the batter's body but his head... why is this not considered (criminal) assault and dealt with as such? Why only a poxy short suspension and maybe monetary penalty (fine) when there is a clear intention to hit another person with a weapon (ball) travelling at 90 mph? If a car was driven at another person at that sort of speed, there would be a wide range of criminal offences that would have been committed - possibly even attempted murder. There's really no argument that one "consents" to that sort of assault any more than a person driving a car down the road consents to being targeted by some road-rage driver. Do tell me if I've got this wrong, and baseball players really do play like gentlemen. And not like thugs.

There certainly has been a lot of talk about his possible collaboration with a repressive regime. Nothing substantive, it seems, more guilt by association. There are some accusations about him handing over, or at least winking at, the capture of two priests. Maybe he did nothing with the junta. Maybe he did something. Maybe if he didn't do whatever he did do, things would have been even worse. This wiki article refers to it: Wikipedia - Pope Francis The BBC article that I referenced in an earlier post has some other information that is not complimentary; here's the link again: BBC profile on Pope Francis Maybe he was the best of a dubious bunch. There has been so much controversy about so many RC priests at all levels - some abusing, some moving abusers around and covering up, some with too-close male friends... There don't appear to be any such allegations about this new pope. So far, anyway.

Italian bishops... obviously God's not speaking to them. Maybe there is a case for the Pope speaking as God's mouthpiece? :biglaugh:/> Hadn't heard that, Excie. Well spotted.

Now that's funny. Enforcing the "no debt" policy upon unsuspecting members of the public, no less.

Exit door's getting a bit of use, then, LOL.

Or maybe that should be: ¡Hola! - hi, Pope!

So now we've got a new one, or at least, RCs have, not that it affects me, not being RC. An Argentinian, Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, a Jesuit, a traditionalist, orthodox...but (it's said) humble and lives simply. Well, that's gonna change, unless he sells off the immense treasures held in the Vatican. He's not seen as a "Vatican insider." BBC profile Vatican bio Sooo... Rome finally acknowledges that places outside Italy exist?

I completed my Half in 2h32m44s which in the circs I thought astonishingly good. I didn't do any prep or training. It was far too cold. Great, though, no aches or pains. My glutes (big bottom muscles!) hurt during the race, my ankle hurt and was still tender the next morning - but my knee didn't hurt at all and that is very often a problem. The sore ankle was an annoyance when I came downstairs but I'd forgotten it was sore within an hour or so. So far I've raised over £1,100 for the charity I ran for. I'm pleased at that, too. I have promises of more from some people who haven't yet given me cash or sponsored me online. Should go over £1,200.

Now watch Johniam jump in and say something about educated responses and discussion thereof. And the "quality" of responses being aligned with one's PoV. Why does every thread become about Johniam? Can't you just ignore his least outrageous posts (at any rate) and continue the discussion without his knots in the thread?

Lovely clown suits, Excie. There's a man inside the room that has another interesting trouser suit. As for the cardinals, looks like they couldn't decide quite what to dress in so a couple of them grabbed the net curtains on the way in.

I did that, Thomas. Yep, can agree that burning the chaff is immensely freeing. Kept the woodburner going for a looooong time.

Woh, Argus, you got your money back?! :drink:/> Many others would like to do that. I spent 2 yrs in rez with LCM as Prez and never thought he was a homosexual. However, the vehemence of his persecution made me wonder if he was hiding something. But I knew nothing of homosexuality (male or female) at that time and he'd probably have to be the campest gay you could imagine... It never occurred to me that head honcho wouldn't be "doing the word." Later, I thought his vehemence was due to Donna taking up with Rosie and his increasing feelings of powerlessness, loss of control, and himself being manipulated that brought out all the anger he displayed. He was permanently angry. He called it "spiritual anger" and encouraged it to spread through the whole ministry. I've never heard these allegations of threesomes or him watching two women at it. Not in all the years I've been reading these threads.

:offtopic:/> Ummm...Mayberry...what are you talking about now? I don't really want an answer to that, it's just that the response seems a very long way from the thread topic.

I'd like to know too, Skyrider. Please do start a thread. VPW did tell some horror stories about deprogramming...but who knows how believable those stories were?

Did Linder really brandish a gun at this confrontation? What was he gonna do, shoot Paul? And his wife? Bury them by the fountain, perhaps - LOL? So much for walking in love, agreeing quickly with one's adversary, etc etc. (Without even backtracking to consider why Paul would be confronting...any of 'em.)

No, I don't decide. I get to see the quality of the responses. Whether they are measured or vitriolic, considered or polarising, dialogue or diatribe.

Johniam, using the "quote" function isn't difficult. Just click the "Reply" button under the reply you want to quote. Don't click the "Add reply" button below that. Write what you want, THEN click "Add reply" at the bottom of your response. It's quite easy, really it is. You said, among other things: And then you answered your own question: You're right about that. God, and His Word, and His Son Jesus Christ...that's our rock. I don't recall that VPW said what you record in the first quote, and I don't care to try to remember. But you, you please DO NOT MAKE THE MISTAKE OF THINKING PFAL AND GOD ARE THE SAME.

If there were no GSC, there would be thousands still in bondage to that dreadful organisation. So many who have passed through here have been enabled to see the truth behind the facade - to see that what happened to them was part of systematic abuse.

Skyrider recently posted this extract from some blog: It put me in mind of a book I've just finished: "The Submission." The book was longlisted for the 2012 Orange Prize for Fiction, a prestigious award. The longlist describes the book thus: The Financial Times says: I include the reviews so that you might take the novel's premise seriously. And it is a very good, readable book. The plot line is that a memorial is designed, in open competition, for the Twin Towers victims. The jury sees only the designs; they don't know who has prepared the design. The chosen design is by a 2nd generation architect, quiet, gets on with his life and interferes with nobody, committed to good design, clean lines, simplicity. And he is a non-observant...Muslim. The book moves the story on through a leak to the press and a disreputable reporter out to make a name for herself reporting this in provocative language, causing local furore, growing international furore, people become increasingly polarised in their views, and everybody is up in arms at everybody else. Local communities turn in on themselves, Americans come to fear all Muslims, Muslim countries verbally attack the USA, and physical attacks of increasing violence, culminating in the death of a totally innocent person, start breaking out. Many lies are told about each different faction and in particular about the architect, who has led a quiet, all-American life and who is totally apolitical. The architect is blamed for all of this aggression taking place...because he is a (nominal) Muslim. Yet he has done nothing at all except submit a design, which is chosen by the committee as being the best design. I hope the book is intended to be satirical. I fear it may not be... The power of written words - whether on the Internet or in a book... so important to mind what we say, whether said in written or spoken words. Do we polarise in what we say, or do we agree quickly with adversaries, those of other opinions, backgrounds or beliefs? Can we agree to differ? Can we honestly say we decide on merit and not on our own prejudices?

Didn't get enough alcohol, that's for sure, Waysider.

So far, 109 of you have looked at this - and not one of you has posted an encouraging message? Sad! Well, I did the Half Marathon, managed to achieve a time of 2h32m44sec which, bearing in mind that I did no training (honestly!) I consider most creditable. Not bad in my age category, either. It was a cold day, which I really can't cope with, but not as cold as it has been, so at least I managed to move...well-wrapped up, of course! And I've always disliked running. Always. Anyway, that aside, no encouragement now needed, but message of congratulation or even, "What, you didn't get enough in rez?" will be welcome.

Have you noticed - after any kind of post here, it's often not the initial post but the NEXT one, the second one, that sets the tone for the following discussion(s)? If it's a thoughtful post, then the next couple of pages of the thread tend to be quite thoughtful. If it's a rant, then the next couple of pages - and perhaps the whole thread - tends to fall apart and any useful discussion is totally lost, on what might have been quite a useful topic. After about the third page, the usual derailers have jumped in and particularly in ATW it tends to become a single discussion about the lifestyle of VPW, the efficacy of PFAL and like matters. Attacking each other's points of view, and not addressing the initial post. And any useful comment becomes totally obscured. There's quite a big responsibility on the second poster o a thread to set a civil tone. Sometimes, I think it might be worthwhile repeating the initial post at the top of each new page of a thread.

Nothing anywhere says how long your walk is...?

Can't sponsor you, Raf, but hope it went well and you raised a lot of money. We call this MS in the UK - it's a nasty disease.